[2497] Q. Sheriff, you testified last week about reading an article in the newspaper about the fact that Senator Jon Kyle [sic], former Senator Jon Kyle, joined Covington & Burling. And you said something, I believe, to the effect that you had read that relatively recently within the last couple months.

I'm going to show you a newspaper article from the Associated Press from March 2013, if Mr. Klein can show that. I ask whether that refreshes your recollection that, in fact, it wasn't within the last couple months but it was actually prior to November 2013 that you first read that Senator Kyle had join Covington & Burling?

A. Well, excuse me, first of all, I don't recall saying that I first read the article you're referring to. I was referring to an article recently from The Arizona Republic where they mentioned Senator Kyle's involvement with that law firm, and he was a consultant for many firms, so that's what I was remembering. That was about two months ago.

Q. In November 2013 you knew that Senator Kyle was with Covington & Burling, correct?

A. Well, it's a little confusing, because I'm not sure, once [2498] you leave office, it takes two years to join a law firm, so I'm not sure it has the time element. It could be.

Q. Okay. Did you ask Dennis Montgomery to give you that document, or anything like that document?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Blixseth to tell Dennis Montgomery to give you this document or anything like that document?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask anyone at MCSO, whether it be Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo, to have Dennis Montgomery give you that document or some document like that?

A. No.

Q. Did you, prior to November 5, 2013, ask Dennis Montgomery to do anything at all to look into Judge Snow or anything about Judge Snow?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo to have Dennis Montgomery do anything to investigate Judge Snow prior to --

MR. YOUNG: Objection, ambiguous.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. MASTERSON:

Q. Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo to do anything, or ask Dennis Montgomery to provide information like Exhibit 2074A [PDF] to you, or to look into or investigate Judge Snow? [2507]

A. No.

Q. I think you told Mr. Young you recall meeting with Dennis Montgomery at some point?

A. Yes.

Q. And I thought you said something maybe at a hotel? Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall when that was?

A. I'm not sure whether it was the first part of 2014. Could be.

Q. Do you recall what you talked about with Dennis Montgomery?

A. I believe we were talking about the banking fraud.

Q. Did you ever see any list of banking information while you were meeting with Dennis Montgomery?

A. No.

Q. While you were meeting with Dennis Montgomery, did you ever discuss Judge Snow at all?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Mr. -- Dennis Montgomery to provide you or -- investi -- provide you with any information about Judge Snow?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Dennis Montgomery to investigate Judge Snow?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall any information that Mr. Montgomery provided to you about this banking information at that meeting? [2508]

A. I don't believe at that meeting.

Q. Do you recall in general, and I'm not asking you for any specifics at this point, but do you recall in general any information that was provided to you about what that banking information supposedly consisted of?

A. Well, I remember the information I got was about 150,000 people living in Maricopa County were victims, and I believe the maybe 300, 350,000 outside of Maricopa County but in Arizona.

Q. And how did you receive that information?

A. I believe I received it from the investigators.

Q. Would that be Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see a list itself, or any computerized document, of banking information from folks here in Maricopa County?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever receive information that Judge Snow's name was in that banking information?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me about that. What did you learn about that or what did you hear about that?

A. Well, I heard that there was not just Judge Snow, but other judges across the nation, plus many businesses, plus my name. My wife was in that situation. [2509]

Q. You learned that information from Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo? Is that how that happened?

A. I'm not sure which one, but it was one of them.

Q. Did they tell you that Judge Snow's personal information was in the banking information supposedly provided by Dennis Montgomery?

A. Yes. I think they mentioned a few with the same name was in there, including the judge, I believe.

Q. Was this information they saw -- and if you know; if you don't know, that's fine, just tell me. Do you know whether they saw this banking information with Judge Snow's name in it, or is this something that Dennis Montgomery is telling them?

A. I don't know. I don't know whether they saw it themselves.

Q. So you don't know whether they saw Judge Snow's name on a list, or whether Dennis Montgomery told them that Judge Snow's name was on the list, is that correct?

A. No. I mean, the point is they could have seen it, but I don't recall if they said they physically or visually saw it themselves.

Q. And I think you just told me -- or were you told that your personal information and your wife's personal information was on the list?

Q. Does that exhibit -- and I actually don't know whether you have a redacted version or not, but does that exhibit have your personal cell phone number on it?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know, does it have Chief Sheridan's personal cell phone number on it?

A. Yes.

Q. And are the personal cell phones that are listed in Exhibit 2074A [PDF], are those next to the -- rather, are those on the lines that are delineated DOJ wiretap and then a number?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that cause you any concern at this point when you saw DOJ wiretap number and then your personal cell phone number?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me about why that might have given you some concern at that point.

A. Well, you know -- excuse me. You know, after being a top federal law enforcement official for many, many years, and the possibility that the government agency is tapping my lines is a little concerning.

Q. Do you recall that as you're sitting here today, that phone call and what you were told during that phone call?

A. Well, in general terms, I believe he received information from a person, a journalist, that my wife's telephone home number was being tapped. And of course, that concerned me also. Here I get two different stories about my telephone line.

Q. Was this by two entirely different people?

A. Yes.

Q. Did both of them -- well, I understand that you didn't talk to Dennis Montgomery when you saw Exhibit 2074A [PDF], but that document does refer to DOJ wiretaps, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then I think you just told us that the very next day when you talked with this JC person, did that person tell you that your phones were being tapped by the feds?

A. Well, I don't know, excuse me, what agency; could have been CIA or whatever.

Q. Do you recall if CIA was mentioned to you on November 6, 2013? [2512]

A. I believe it may have been.

Q. Now, let me ask you this: On November 5, 2013, the day before, or before that, were you told that Dennis Montgomery was somehow involved with the CIA? Or did you know that yet?

A. I don't think I knew that.

Q. Okay. So on November 5 and November 6, 2013, two entirely different sources were telling you that your personal phone is being tapped by someone in the federal government.

MR. YOUNG: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. MASTERSON:

Q. Were you told on November 5 and November 6 by two different people that your phones were tapped?

MR. YOUNG: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. MASTERSON:

Q. Well, Sheriff, take a look at Exhibit 2074A [PDF], please, and look at the line September 28, 2009. You see that?

THE COURT: Do you know, Mr. Masterson, could I interrupt here? I just want one more point of clarification.

MR. MASTERSON: Certainly, Judge.

THE COURT: If you can, Sheriff, just by referring to the DOJ wiretap number, which one of those was you and which one was Chief Deputy Sheridan? Or did you believe to be you, and which one did you believe to be of Chief Deputy Sheridan?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, excuse me. I go by the phone number.

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: It's my phone number.

THE COURT: Yeah. And you don't have to tell me your phone number, but you'll see that the one that has your phone number has a DOJ wiretap number associated with it? [2514]

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Could you tell me the DOJ wiretap number that is associated with your phone number.

THE WITNESS: Well, I can give it out, but I don't know if it's --

THE COURT: Yeah, I don't think it hurts if you give out the wiretap number; don't give out your phone number.

THE WITNESS: It's 56990-34.

THE COURT: All right. And what is the DOJ wiretap number that is supposedly associated with Chief Deputy Sheridan's phone number?

THE WITNESS: It's 64402-03.

THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Masterson.

BY MR. MASTERSON:

Q. Now, on the very next day on November 6th, 2013, did anyone tell you your phones were being tapped?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you told who was tapping your phones?

A. I think the mention was the CIA.

Q. Was the November 6th information completely from a different source than November 5 information?

A. That I know of, yes.

Q. When Mr. Young was asking you questions you used the word "bizarre." Can you tell me what you meant by that? [2515]

A. Well, it is bizarre when you look at my situation. I do know that I was a little concerned. I believe around June of that year someone sent me a, personally to me a bomb, and the FBI postal inspector spent a year to catch the guy. He was convicted in federal court here and also in Oklahoma.

And three months later, another e-mail comes to kill my wife and my grandkids, and the threats continued. I think that person is now in court. So I had a little concern. It seems that it was a pretty rough six months with these alleged wiretaps and threats.

Q. Were you curious about what was going on if somebody from the federal government was tapping your phones?

A. If it was true, yes, I would be concerned.

Q. Did you want to look into that and see if you could find out what was going on?

A. Well, my main objective was to get more information. I believe our detectives or Montgomery had mentioned that Montgomery could get a voice sample of those telephone calls. I'm not an expert, I don't know if they can or they can't, but that's what I was told.

Q. Tell me a little bit about that. Were you trying to get Mr. Montgomery to come up with, I guess, a recording of the wiretap on you? Is that what you're telling me?

A. Well, that's one reason, and another is to verify his liability, whether this is all garbage or not. [2516]

Q. Do you recall -- and I think you talked about it with Mr. Young a little bit -- a meeting at your office, and I don't want to put words on your -- in your mouth, but I think you testified that Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo or both of them were on the phone.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell -- tell us what you recall learning at that meeting.

A. Well -- excuse me. One thing that concerned me was the government or someone infiltrating my office and the County Attorney's Office, and even the -- my law firm.

Q. Now, when you say your law firm, what do you mean?

A. That's the law firm I'm using that you're representing.

Q. Okay. My law firm.

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You just said you were concerned about your office and the County Attorney's Office and my law firm. Can you tell me why you were concerned about that?

A. Well, I think that's a big security breach when people are going into the sensitive information of a government agency and also a law firm.

Q. What were you told about a possible breach of your agency, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, or my law firm?

A. Well, the main thing was that they were going into it. I [2517] didn't get all the information if they got anything or not. I do know the law firm triggered my interest because it was mentioned that one of the lawyers' kid was going to play soccer, and how would anybody know that if they didn't get into those e-mails of that law firm.

Q. Now, did you learn this at that meeting that you were talking about with Mr. Young?

Q. Do you recall who was on the phone? In other words, who was providing you -- well, let me stop and just ask it again.

Who was providing that information to you during that meeting about the intrusion, or hack, into your office, MCAO, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, and my law firm? Who was giving you that information?

A. I believe that the -- Detective Mackiewicz and Zullo were there on the phone --

Q. Okay.

A. -- not in person.

Q. Did you bring up Judge Snow at that time?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz to investigate Judge Snow?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask Mike Zullo to investigate Judge Snow?

A. No.

Q. Did either of those two gentlemen provide any information [2518] to you about Judge Snow on that phone call, that you recall?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Do you know whether you had Exhibit 2074A [PDF] while you were on that phone call?

A. No. I don't believe I had.

Q. Well, let me ask you -- well, let me ask again: Are you telling me you don't think you had it or you don't recall whether you had it?

A. I don't recall if I had it in my hand or heard about it.

Q. Okay. During that meeting were you concerned about Maricopa County Sheriff's Office computers possibly having been hacked?

A. Very concerned.

Q. Were you concerned about the Maricopa County Attorney's computers supposedly been hacked?

MR. YOUNG: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow it.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was concerned.

BY MR. MASTERSON:

Q. Were you concerned about your private attorneys', my law firm's computers being hacked?

A. Yes.

Q. At that point, tell me -- tell me at that point what -- well, did you think it was important to follow up on that, or did you think this was all, what we've heard before, garbage or [2519] junk? Did you know at that time what you were dealing with here?

A. No.

Q. Did you think it was important to follow up?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Well, I think when you have a -- two law enforcement officials, their lines are tapped, if it was true, that's important; and also government agencies infiltrated.

Q. Did MCSO follow up on some of the information provided by Dennis Montgomery with respect to the banking information or the identity theft issues, do you know?

A. I believe so.

Q. Do you know what was done?

A. I believe the chief deputy assigned some detectives to follow up on it.

Q. And do you know what those detectives found?

A. I'm not sure all the details, but I believe they found some evidence, some connection that somewhat verified the -- the bank accounts.

Q. So are you telling me that the detectives who followed up did verify certain of the information that was provided them was accurate?

Note. Ex. 2531 is: Forwarded E-mail from Brian Mackiewicz to Jerry Sheridan of E-mail from Thomas Drake to Brian Mackiewicz re a summary of data and information analysis of information from Dennis dated 11/14/2014 (MELC198093-198095). As of Oct. 8, it was not yet admitted into evidence.

Q. Well, do you remember being told at some point that the opinion was that Mr. Montgomery was a total fraud?

A. Yes.

Q. At that point did you agree with that, or did you still have concerns? Tell me your thought process at that time about Mr. Montgomery and his investigation.

A. Well, there's -- excuse me. There's always that possibility that something could be true. Even though someone may have a bad reputation, one day maybe give you -- give law enforcement some credible information. But I didn't have much confidence in the -- in that informer.

Q. Well, let me ask you this. You used an interesting phrase last week, and I want to -- I want you to tell me a little bit more about it. What you said was "sometimes the worst guys come up with the best information."

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Well, if you're the worst guy you might have pretty good information. [2521]

Q. Were you at the DEA for a while?

A. Twenty-eight years.

Q. In your work with the DEA were you ever involved with confidential informants?

A. Yes.

Q. A lot? A little? Somewhere in the middle?

A. Well, most of my career was in charge, but when I was a working agent, yes.

Q. Well, here's my question. And just, I guess, you can use all of your law enforcement career, if you'd like. I'm talking about your DEA career at this point. But are confidential informants always upstanding citizens trying to do the right thing and do justice for the world?

A. No.

Q. Are they sometimes nasty people trying to get out of a jam themselves?

MR. YOUNG: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Oh, I'm going to allow it.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, they have other reasons.

BY MR. MASTERSON:

Q. Tell me. Tell me about -- just give me a little explanation about your experience with confidential informants in your very lengthy law enforcement career, and particularly when you were with the DEA.

Tell me about what kind of people you're working with [2522] when you're working with confidential informants. And I know there's some good people out there, too, but tell us about all of them.

A. In my experience, the best informers are those that are involved in that illicit activity.

Q. Why are they the best informers?

A. Because they have the information, they know who the bad guys are, and you have to give them some credibility.

Q. Do they always give you reliable information?

A. Not always. Sometimes you invest in them but they don't come through.

Q. Do they sometimes lie to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Do they sometimes try to lead you on?

A. My world, my experience, yes.

Q. Do they sometimes try to get things from you in return for information?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the information that was coming to you from Dennis Montgomery is coming -- well, is it coming from someone other than Dennis Montgomery?

Q. You remember on April 23rd, which was in the April session, one of the days on which you testified, can't remember whether you testified two days then or not, but you did testify on April 23rd, and it was when I asked you about what we've since been calling the Montgomery investigation or the Seattle operation. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you remember that two or three times, I believe, I [2560] directed you to preserve a number of documents, all electronic communications, everything else that you had received from Mr. Montgomery.

Do you remember me directing you to do that?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do to implement my order?

A. Well, I think I gave it to my personnel to implement the order.

Q. What did you do specifically, and to whom did you give it?

A. I don't recall who I gave it to, but I'm sure we had the people that were looking into that, specialized people.

Q. Well, who were they, to the best of your recollection?

A. I think it was Captain Farnsworth, Bill Knight, to get all the information together.

Q. And did you speak to Captain Farnsworth and to Bill Knight?

A. On that issue?

Q. Yes.

A. I didn't get involved that much.

Q. So who did you speak to about gathering that information?

A. I may have talked to our lawyers or --

Q. And who were your lawyers?

A. I think Michele Iafrate.

Q. Uh-huh. And so it would be your testimony that Ms. Iafrate handled the collection of that information?

Q. Well, I'm not asking if she's involved, and I don't want to get into attorney-client privilege any more than I need to.

But I'm asking everybody that you told, that you issued any instruction -- and I'm talking about you personally -- to comply with my order that I gave you.

So I'm asking you again: Who did you tell, other than Ms. Iafrate, to comply with my order?

A. I don't know if it was -- I thought everybody knew about that order, and it was delegated to people to get it done. I don't remember me going writing memos and that type of thing to get it carried out.

Q. So you don't recall, say, talking to Chief Deputy Sheridan about that order to you?

A. I'm not sure that we had the conversation, but possibly we did.

Q. Well, if you had the conversation, do you have any recollection about where it would have been?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any recollection about what you might have discussed?

A. No. Just trying to get the people to abide by your orders. That was our main mission.

Q. Now, you knew, at the time that I issued you that order, that you had approximately 50 hard drives that Montgomery had sent you that he'd represented were his database from the CIA [2562] or wherever, correct?

A. He didn't send me that. I think the --

Q. Well, he sent to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that they were in MCSO custody, correct?

A. Way back there probably I did, I'm not sure.

Q. Well, you've already testified that you knew about them going and coming back from Washington, D.C., right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so you knew, or at least as far as you knew, the MCSO still was in custody of those 50 hard drives.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any discussion with anybody about turning over those 50 hard drives, making sure those got disclosed to the Court?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you have a discussion with Chief Sheridan on the night of the 23rd about what to do about the 50 hard drives?

A. I don't recall, Your Honor.

Q. Do you think you may have had such a discussion?

A. Possible, but I don't recall.

Q. You don't recall anybody else to whom you may have delegated getting the 50 hard drives personally, other than Ms. Iafrate? [2563]

A. I believe that the -- the people working for me were carrying out that order. I wasn't personally involved.

Q. Yeah, I understand. And so I'm asking you, and I want to be really clear, and I want to make sure you understand, other than the conversation that you say you may have had with Chief Deputy Sheridan, but -- do you recall having any conversations with anyone -- and by "you" I mean you personally -- do you recall having any conversations with anyone about responding to the order that I gave you in the April 23rd hearing?

A. The only way I can answer that, that I wanted that order to be followed, carried out. I don't recall who, if I ever mentioned to anybody specific.

Q. Well, I guess I want to refine that.

You in your mind wanted the order to be followed, correct?

A. That's for sure.

Q. What did you do to communicate that to anyone?

A. Well, I think they all knew that the order should be carried out.

Q. And so I don't mean to be too pejorative about that, but you just assumed that they knew that you wanted it carried out. You're not sure you ever said anything to anyone about carrying out that order.

A. I did not write any memos or that type of situation. I knew that the order and hoped that it would be carried out. [2564]

Q. But you don't recall having any discussion with anyone for sure about that.

A. That's right.

Q. I want to make sure -- I'm hopping around again. I want to make sure that I understand the chronology of what you're talking about with respect to that November 5th memo, which is 2074A [PDF], November 5th, 2013 memo that you -- that Montgomery faxed to you.

Shortly after he faxed that to you, you had -- you met with Chief Deputy Sheridan and you discussed the fact that you were on -- you both indicated that you were -- had your wire, that you'd been a subject of a wiretap, right?

A. Yes.

Q. There was nothing else that struck you about that memo at that time?

A. No.

Q. Subsequently, you had another meeting, and this one involved Chief Deputy Sheridan, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio. And at that meeting, did you receive any new memos or any updated version of the former memo you had received?

Q. All right. But at that meeting there was some new information offered, I gather. And I don't want to put words [2565] in your mouth; I'm just trying to get a correct chronology. So if I say something that's wrong, correct me.

But at that subsequent meeting, somehow you were told that not only were you wiretapped, not only was Chief Deputy Sheridan wiretapped, but your offices were wiretapped, the Maricopa County Attorney's Offices were wiretapped, and your attorney's law firm, at least your attorney in what was then the DOJ firm, which is now the same two attorneys you have here, Mr. Masterson and Mr. Popolizio, were also wiretapped.

A. I don't think, excuse me, it was wiretap. I know that the chief deputy and myself, because it said wiretap. The other incidences were that they infiltrated the e-mails, especially the --

Q. I see.

A. -- law firm. It wasn't --

Q. Okay, so --

A. -- a wiretap.

Q. It wasn't a wiretap. The wiretaps were you and the chief deputy. And then your concern was that the DOJ had breached your domains as it pertains to your computers and your Internet connectivity and whatever would be on your computers, is that correct?

Q. Right. And I'm assuming e-mails. I guess e-mails can be done from cell phones or whatever, but they had breached the electronic domains of those places.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember discussing with me in April that somehow you heard that my domain was breached?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you hear that my domain was breached?

A. I'm not sure of the time frame, but when they were reviewing -- or Montgomery was giving information from who was in that, those bank situations, that your name, three, four Snows came up.

Q. And was this after this meeting that you had with Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson?

A. Yes.

Q. Who else was present at that meeting? The meeting I'm talking about now where you first learned that -- well, maybe I'm assuming too much.

Did you learn before the meeting that there had been a potential breach of your electronic information domain and Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's electronic information domain and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office electronic information domain? [2567]

A. You know, I'm not sure the timing, but I think that triggered -- triggered me to be concerned, and I believe the detective, Mackiewicz and Zullo, were on the telephone.

Q. Okay. So Zullo and Mackiewicz were on the telephone. They may have told you previously that these domains had been breached. You called the meeting, had Popolizio and Masterson there.

A. Yes.

Q. And who else was there besides Zullo and Mackiewicz, Popolizio and Masterson, and you and Sheridan?

A. I think Tim Casey was there.

Q. Okay.

A. And probably Tom Liddy.

Q. All right. How long after the November 6th meeting, the November 5th meeting that you had with Chief Deputy Sheridan, did this meeting occur?

A. I think that's the meeting we're talking about, the --

Q. Well, do you remember first you testifying that you had a meeting with just Chief Deputy Sheridan to discuss the November 5th memo when it came in? And then later you said you found out that there may have been a breach of domains and you had another meeting in which you called in Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey, and Zullo and Mackiewicz were on the phone?

A. I'm not sure that -- I may have discussed that with the [2568] chief deputy, and then we had the meeting when the information came out that the wiretaps and all that other thing --

Q. I understand that.

A. -- wires.

Q. I understand that. So how long after your meeting with the chief deputy did you have that meeting?

A. It may have been rather quickly.

Q. May have been quickly?

A. Yeah.

Q. So that would have been at the same time that you were sending, roughly -- and again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to get a chronology -- would have been about the same time that you were sending Zullo from Seattle to Southern California to talk to the photographer gentleman who told you that your phones were being wiretapped?

A. I believe that happened the next day. When I got information about the wiretap, the next day other information came out, I don't believe related to this, and sent Zullo down here to talk to the people, see what the story was about.

Q. Okay. I'm not under -- I'm not sure I understood what you just said. Let me see if I can piece it back -- or go ahead.

A. The first information on the tap[p]ing the telephone I believe came out around November 5. The next day, another -- other information came out that my wife's phone, home phone, was being tapped. [2569]

Q. I got that. And that's from this photographer phone call.

A. Yes. And so back to back --

Q. I got that. But then when did you get the information that your electronic information domain, Jones and Skelton's electronic information domain, and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office information domain had been breached? And you heard the information about somebody knowing about Mr. Popolizio's daughter's soccer game.

Was that all part of the same meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you get that information?

A. I'm not sure if it came out in that November 5 --

Q. I think you've already testified that there wasn't anything in the November 5 meeting. And again, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

A. No, I mean the -- the form.

Q. Well, there wasn't anything in the form that mentions any of that stuff. I will tell you that there appears to be in the record, but it's not entered into evidence, a form that appears to be an update of that which does mention that stuff, but it's an updated memorandum.

Q. It did men -- November 5th mentioned the tapes, but it did not mention the penetration of domains.

A. That's correct, not in that form, yes.

Q. When did you find out about the penetration of the domains?

A. I think verbally from one of the investigators that --

Q. Yeah, but when in relation to that November 5th meeting?

A. That would be pretty close.

Q. Pretty close, but probably after.

A. Yes.

Q. Let me ask you --

And gentlemen, I'm just going to show him document number 7 in Exhibit 2082.

THE CLERK: Which exhibit?

THE COURT: It's Exhibit 2082, and 2082 is divided up into documents. And I just want the sheriff to look at document number 7.

BY THE COURT:

Q. If you need a minute, take it, but it's a six-page document, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it shows down at the bottom a revision, 2.3.

Do you see that it's a Revision 2.3 on the bottom?

A. It would be what page, Your Honor?

Q. All of the pages. If you look down at the bottom right, [2571] they all show that it's a Revision 2.3. Down at the bottom, do you see that?

A. 2.3.

Q. Sheriff, if you look, that is divided up into a number of documents. I want you to look at document number 7. You don't have to look at the other documents.

A. All right. Thank you.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the document I'm talking about now?

A. Yes.

Q. And you see that it has the same title as the document you received on November 5th, which is "DOJ/Arpaio Timeline" at the top?

A. Yes.

Q. But it has Revision 2.3 down in the bottom right-hand corner?

A. Yes.

Q. And does the document on the first page seem to be essentially the same information that was faxed to you on November 5th?

A. Yes.

Q. But it doesn't have -- if you look at the entry, for example, for 10-15-2009 and 8-15-2010, it doesn't have on the document you received November 5th, it doesn't have those [2572] entries that your domains were breached, or that Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's domains were breached, or that the Maricopa County Attorney's domains were breached, right?

A. No.

Q. So this appears to be an addition to that time line, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you ever remember seeing this document?

A. The one that I am reading now?

Q. Yeah.

A. No.

Q. Okay. And you see on the third page that it talks about some of the other things that you've said that, you know, 135,000 residents in Maricopa County had information harvested, and 462,000 residents of the state of Arizona. Do you ever remember seeing that number or that figure?

A. No.

Q. Do you see that that is information that had been harvested supposedly between 2001 and 2008, up at the top?

A. Yes.

Q. And then if you turn the next page, do you see the references to Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson and somebody's daughter's soccer game and softball game?

Q. You don't think that you may have received this document in conjunction with your meeting with Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson?

A. You mean the document I'm reading?

Q. Yeah.

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. No.

Q. But that was, as best you recall, regardless of whether or not you received this document, that was the information that essentially you received in that meeting that you had when you discussed this matter with Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio, Mr. Casey, and Chief Deputy Sheridan, with Mr. Mackiewicz and Mr. Zullo on the line?

A. Yes.

Q. So this is sort of an increase in the information that you'd received from November 5th.

A. Yes.

Q. And you received that several days later. But still fairly close in time, I think you've said.

A. Yes.

Q. You then testified, I think, that you had a meeting -- and again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if you didn't say this, correct me -- but you said you had another meeting in which you saw -- which you had reviewed the [2574]schematic that is in 2072. You remember the schematic thing that has the Department of Justice at the center and all the lines going out?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had that in another meeting that you had approximately around New Year's Day, is that correct?

A. I don't know the time frame. Are you talking about the -- I don't know what -- that flowchart or whatever?

Q. Right.

A. Yeah.

Q. If you look at 2072, the last three pages of 2072 are various iterations of that flowchart. I think you have 2072 there, Exhibit 2072.

2072. If you can find 2072.

A. I got document 2.

Q. Do you have Exhibit 2072, Sheriff?

A. I have 2082.

Q. Okay. Close 2082.

A. Okay.

Q. And then see if you can find 2072.

A. Response here?

Q. Yeah. Or if you can bring 2072, the last three pages, up on the computer screen, if that would save us some time. Okay. If you could turn to the last three pages of that exhibit. [2575]

Well, before we leave this document, which is the first page of the exhibit, do you remember seeing a time line in that subsequent meeting that you had where you had the schematic? Do you remember seeing a time line like this?

A. I believe I did.

Q. All right. And then there were several schematics that went with the time line, or at least one schematic that went with the time line?

A. Is that the round --

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, if you'll turn to one of the -- the last three pages of this exhibit. Is that what it looked like?

MR. MASTERSON: Judge, excuse me. Could I ask a question?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. MASTERSON: On the previous page is the highlighting we're seeing, is that highlighting done by the monitor, do we know?

THE COURT: I do not know, but it's possible that it is.

MR. MASTERSON: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: And I will find out the answer to that question and tell you.

Q. All right. And then you had a meeting -- you had a meeting after the meeting with Mr. Popolizio -- the first meeting we've discussed with Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson, where you had this -- had a time line and this accompanying schematic or something like it present, correct?

A. I don't recall that second meeting that could have happened regarding this time line.

Q. All right.

A. This one.

Q. Okay.

A. But I know it was brought to a -- to my attention.

Q. And when was it brought to your attention?

A. I believe it was probably early part of 2014.

Q. Okay. And did you look at the time line and the schematic?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any meetings with anybody in which you discussed this schematic and/or the time line, that you can recall?

A. I think the chief deputy and I looked at this --

Q. Um-hum.

A. -- and didn't give much credence to it. And I think that's [2577]the time that we ordered the investigators that you don't get involved in anything to do with the judge. That was an order. We weren't going to get involved in that.

Q. So you realized when you saw the time line and the schematic that it involved this Court.

A. It was on it. Your name was on it.

Q Yeah.

A. Not that I believed it, but...

Q. But you realized when you looked at these documents that they involved this Court.

A. Yes.

Q. And then you shared those documents with the chief deputy.

A. We talked about it.

Q. And did he have copies of these documents?

A. I don't know if he had copies.

Q. Okay. But you talked about these documents with the chief deputy.

A. Yes.

Q. And you talked about the fact that the documents seemed to implicate me in the -- or this Court in the overall scheme of the Department of Justice involving wiretaps and communications.

A. Yes.

Q. And then -- well, tell me what you can recall about that conversation. Where did it occur? [2578]

A. I'm not sure if it was at my office, his office. Could have been my office when we saw this.

Q. And what did you say, to the best of your recollection?

A. Well, first of all, it was very difficult to believe the credibility of the source, and we were very adamant that we're not going to believe this document, and that there will be no investigation of the judge, period.

Q. Did you notice that on this document it says that I was the one that authorized the wiretap on your cell phone?

A. Another bizarre situation which I could never believe, but it was there.

Q. All right. And you saw it, and realized that's what it was saying.

A. Yes.

Q. And did you share that with the chief deputy?

A. I'm not sure whether he saw it. I'm sure he looked at it. But I breezed through it, I didn't go through the whole thing. I still was a little concerned about the wiretaps and infiltrating these government agencies. But when we saw that, we ordered our people you -- if your name came up anywhere, there will be no investigation.

Q. All right. We're still back in the conversation you had with the chief deputy when you discussed this.

What do you remember saying to the chief deputy?

A. Well, I was very -- being a federal guy all these years, I [2579] was shocked, and I didn't give much credibility to the source.

Q. And you said that to the chief deputy?

A. I'm not sure what our conversation was, but it had to be in that line, because we wanted to make sure --

Q. Do you recall what he said to you?

A. No. I think he was surprised, too, with this information.

Q. And then you said you instructed your people. Who did you personally instruct?

A. I think the chief deputy notified the -- the two investigators.

Q. Okay. And so you didn't personally instruct anybody, but the chief deputy instructed your two investigators.

A. I believe he did, yes.

Q. Now, mostly those investigators spoke with you directly, correct?

A. On occasion.

Q. And the chief deputy wasn't always involved in those discussions.

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you ever yourself instruct those investigators not to do any further investigation regarding this Court?

Q. Now, when you were here in April, I did ask you if you knew of anyone that had ever investigated me in connection with the newspaper article and you indicated no, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. You were aware, though, that Mr. Montgomery was investigat- -- had investigated me, even if you don't believe that you investigated me, you were aware that Mr. Montgomery had investigated me, weren't you?

A. No.

MR. MASTERSON: Objection, foundation.

THE WITNESS: I don't think there was any investigation. He just came up with a flowchart. I don't call that an investigation. We didn't investigate it.

BY THE COURT:

Q. When you received this flowchart, did anybody explain it to you?

A. The flowchart?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Did anybody explain the time line to you?

A. Not that I can recall.

Q. Who gave it to you?

A. That's a good question. I'm not sure whether it came up through the documents, but I believe that's the first time I [2581] saw that, around the first of the year.

Q. Did you ever see it again?

A. After?

Q. Yes.

A. It was in the file.

Q. What?

A. It's in the file.

Q. So it stayed in the file.

A. Yes.

Q. Several iterations of it stayed in the file.

So did you ever look at those documents again?

A. No, until the -- the -- dealt with my attorneys for this hearing, I guess.

Q. When was the next time you saw this document?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Was it after I raised the matter with you last May that you saw this document again for the first time? Or did you see it sometime between then -- between the first of 2014 and when I raised the matter with you again?

A. No, I believe we saw it 2014. That's when we gave the order out.

Q. Yes. Did you see it any time between then and your testimony in the contempt hearing?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Did you see it any time between the contempt hearing and [2582] when I raised the matter in May of 2014?

A. I don't believe I was looking at that flowchart.

Q. Did you ever discuss it with anyone?

A. I think the only one is the chief deputy when he saw it, and maybe with the investigators, telling them not to do anything with it.

Q. After you instructed the investigators not to do anything to investigate this Court, did you ever discuss it again with anyone?

A. I don't recall.

Q. You have no recollection one way or the other.

A. No.

Q. You may have discussed it with somebody, you just can't remember.

A. I don't know who I would have discussed it with, but I don't recall.

Q. Did you ever discuss it with the investigators?

A. I think I mentioned after that we told them not to get involved.

Q. Yes, thank you for clarifying.

Who did you tell not to get involved? You personally, who did you tell?

A. It may have been Zullo; it may have been Mackiewicz or both, I don't recall.

A. Could have been either one. I reiterated that you don't get involved in any investigation pertaining to the judge.

Q. I'm sorry, I don't want to be -- seem like I'm bothering you, but you're not sure whether you had such a conversation with either one of them.

A. I'm pretty sure that I did.

Q. But you don't recall with which one of them it was.

A. It could have been both.

Q. Could have been both; could have been one or the other; you're not sure, you don't recall.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever have any discussions with this -- with Sergeant Anglin regarding this investigation of this flowchart, or any of this material?

A. You know, I don't recall whether that was brought up or not, or the time line, but I think the instructions were out there that you don't investigate the judge. I think everybody knew that.

Q. Do you have any recollection after you may have issued such instruction to the investigators of ever discussing this matter with them again?

A. I don't recall.

Q. You were here for Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember him mentioning something about Mr. Liddy [2584] talking about an operation called "the hammer"?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you first hear about the hammer?

A. I think that was at that meeting that we initially had with all the attorneys.

Q. When you say "that meeting," you mean the meeting where you discussed Mr. Popolizio's --

A. Yes.

Q. -- daughter?

A. Yes.

Q. You discussed the hammer at that meeting?

A. Mr. Liddy, I think, brought that up.

Q. Did you ever discuss the hammer again with anyone?

A. No.

Q. You've indicated in your testimony that you continued to investigate and have your investigators investigate the wiretaps on your phone, correct?

A. Well, I was concerned because of the numbers next to it, which probably signifies a wiretap, and the main thing to the test the credibility of the informer, which we were losing confidence in him. But I think he came up and said that he could get the audio of the tape.

Now, I'm not a technical guy. So it was almost like "put up or shut up" if you're saying our wire -- our phones have been taped -- or tapped. [2585]

Q. Did he ever give you the audio of the tape?

A. No.

Q. You recall testifying that you authorized your folks to go and speak with a FISA Court judge in Washington, D.C., about the wiretap?

A. Well, they -- I don't know all the facts of what they discussed there.

Q. And do you remember them reporting back to you that the FISA Court judge said it looked like the wiretap numbers were authentic wiretap numbers used in Department of Justice investigations, or something to that effect?

A. All I recall, the judge didn't say either way, but when he looked at it he kind of gave an indication, but I don't think he ever said it was or was not.

Q. And I think you indicated that you thought the folks may have had access to the judge through Mr. Klayman, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Was Mr. Klayman your attorney at that time?

A. He wasn't -- I'm not sure. At the time of the lawsuit against the president?

Q. Yes.

A. Is that the time? I'm not sure that happened before or [2586] after.

Q. So Mr. Klayman has been representing you in a lawsuit against the president, correct?

A. On the immigration situation.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he's filed an amicus brief, I think, in a matter in Texas also on your behalf, is that correct?

A. I believe he did.

Q. And you don't recall whether he was your lawyer at the time that your investigators would have met with the judge from the FISA Court?

A. I don't recall the time.

Q. Do you recall whether he was Mr. Montgomery's lawyer at that point?

A. I don't know if he was the attorney at that time, his attorney, whether he came in after or what.

Q. Were you ever aware that your investigators were dealing with Mr. Klayman when they were trying to find out whether Mr. Montgomery was credible, because Mr. Klayman was representing himself to be Mr. Montgomery's attorney?